Re: [OSPF] OSPF Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP Interface Type

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Tue, 23 November 2010 19:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A684728C17D for <ospf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:30:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k2Z172q6mxAA for <ospf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:30:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DC8328C146 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:30:37 -0800 (PST)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oANJDeES008410; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:13:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from dhcp-10-61-100-84.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-100-84.cisco.com [10.61.100.84]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oANJDZCF020684; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:13:35 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4CEC125F.6040701@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:13:35 +0100
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>
References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456B028963031@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <4CEC039D.8010305@cisco.com> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456B028A569EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456B028A569EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP Interface Type
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:30:41 -0000

Hi Jeffrey,

please see inline:

On 23.11.2010 19:29, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote:
> Peter,
>
> I think I understand the potential issue you mentioned, but not quite clear about your solution.
>
> The draft mentions that the metrics could be dynamically learned if the underlying network support it (in that case the l2 and l3 should match). However that is outside the scope the draft, which assumes that the metrics is obtained by some means. Indeed if it is statically configured then the operator needs to be careful.

dynamically updating L3 metrics based on the L2 topology is a problem of 
it own. The consequence is that L2 network changes that mostly used to 
be hidden to the L3 now becomes propagated to the L3 network.

>
> You mentioned creating p2p l2 connections. Does that mean there will be correponding l3 p2p interfaces? If yes isn't it no longer a bcast/p2mp hybrid? If not can you elaborate?

yes, some form of a sub-interface using the VLAN technology. That is 
typically a p2p connection between the two OSPF speakers.

thanks,
Peter
>
> Thanks.
> Jeffrey
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 1:11 PM
>> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP Interface Type
>>
>> Hi Jeffrey,
>>
>> one potential issue with this approach is the possible suboptimal
>> traffic path if the L3 p2p topology created as you described do not
>> match the L2 forwarding topology. With large L2 domains it may be be
>> nontrivial to assign L3 metric correctly so that the L2/L3
>> forwarding match.
>>
>> One possible method to address the problem in hand is to create p2p
>> connections between the routers via the L2 domain, using dedicated
>> VLANs. This way the L2 forwarding is forced to match the L3
>> p2p topology.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Peter
>>
>> On 22.11.2010 17:36, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I presented the draft
>> http://www.ietf.org/draft-nsheth-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-01
>> .txt in Beijing (slides
>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/ospf-9.ppt) and it
>> was deferred to the mailing list on whether the problem is
>> worth the working group effort (some who reviewed the draft
>> agreed that the proposed solution is reasonable for the problem).
>>>
>>> I'd like to request folks to review the draft/slides and
>> voice your opinion. We developed the solution for a real
>> network situation and would like to see that it gets
>> consensus and standardized so that more operators/vendors can
>> benefit from this.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>> Jeffrey
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OSPF mailing list
>>> OSPF@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>>
>>
>>
>